ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00041263
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Yosra Mathlouthi | Wipro |
Representatives | self | Tina Ochelle Deasy -IBEC |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00052265-001 | 16/08/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00052265-002 | 16/08/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00052265-004 | 16/08/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00052265-005 | 16/08/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/03/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant stated at the hearing that her employer unlawfully deducted €2000 from her salary.
The Complainant is employed as a QA Analyst and commenced her employment at the Company on or about the 12th of April 2021.
In her complaint form the deductions are framed to have occurred as follows:
CA-00052265-001: The date of deduction is 31/08/2021
CA-00052265-002: The date of deduction is 30/09/2021
CA-00052265-04 The date deduction is 30/11/2021
CA-00052265-005 The date of deduction is 22/12/2021
I note the High Court Decision Health Service Executive v McDermott [2014] IEHC 331 concerning the relevant period to bring a claim under the Act: The construction of s. 6(4) of the 1991 Act 12. It is at this point that we can return to the construction of the relevant language of s. 6(4), namely, “within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates”. The first thing to note is that no special meaning has been ascribed to the word “contravention” by the 1991 Act, so that it must be given its ordinary, natural meaning. The complaint form was lodged with the Commission on the 16th of August 2022. The 6-month period to make a complaint runs from the date of contravention.
The most recent alleged contravention of the 22nd of December 2021 to be made on time would have to have been lodged by the 21st of July 2022. In fact, it was lodged on the 16th of August 2022 which means it is out time. Therefore, based on the alleged contravention dates as follows: CA-00052265-001: The date of deduction is 31/08/2021
CA-00052265-002: The date of deduction is 30/09/2021
CA-00052265-04 The date deduction is 30/11/2021
CA-00052265-005 The date of deduction is 22/12/2021
All of the above have been lodged outside the of the 6-month period to do so. |
Preliminary Matter
In McDermott Hogan J concluded that
- Depending, of course, on the manner in which the complaint is framed, only complaints which “relate” to the last six months (or, if the Rights Commissioner is satisfied that there are “exceptional circumstances” which prevented the bringing of the complaint, twelve months) prior to the presentation of the complaint to the Rights Commissioner will not be time-barred.
All of the complaints are outside of the time frame to bring a complaint.
The Complainant has not provided exceptional reasons why the complaints were lodged late.
There is nothing in the narrative of the complaint form that would provide an exceptional reason to extend time. The Complainant does state that there was high turnover at the company and for 3 months she was misled by a manager. However, that leaves another 3 months to address that misrepresentation by lodging the complaint on time.
At the hearing the Complainant also stated that a reconciliation of what monies she was owed had taken place and she had been compensated for some of the alleged shortfalls; however, she believed that she was still owed about €2000. However, no detail was provided at the hearing to show how that amount was due to her and on what date(s) it related to.
The Complainant did not provide an exceptional reason at the hearing to extend time.
As the alleged contraventions are outside of the relevant period to make a complaint to the Commission, I determine that the complaints are not well founded.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
See preliminary matter |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
See preliminary matter |
Findings and Conclusions:
See preliminary matter |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00052265-001: The date of deduction is 31/08/2021-the date of lodging the complaint with the Commission is 16th of August 2022.
At the hearing the Complainant also stated that a reconciliation of what monies she was owed had taken place and she had been compensated for some of the alleged shortfalls; however, she believed that she was still owed about €2000. However, no detail was provided at the hearing to show how that amount was due to her and on what date(s) it related to. The Complainant did not provide an exceptional reason at the hearing to extend time. As the alleged contravention is outside of the relevant period to make a complaint to the Commission, I determine that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00052265-002: The date of deduction is 30/09/2021 the date of lodging the complaint with the Commission is 16th of August 2022. At the hearing the Complainant also stated that a reconciliation of what monies she was owed had taken place and she had been compensated for some of the alleged shortfalls; however, she believed that she was still owed about €2000. However, no detail was provided at the hearing to show how that amount was due to her and on what date(s) it related to. The Complainant did not provide an exceptional reason at the hearing to extend time. As the alleged contravention is outside of the relevant period to make a complaint to the Commission, I determine that the complaint is not well founded.
CA-00052265-04 The date deduction is 30/11/2021- the date of lodging the complaint with the Commission is 16th of August 2022.
At the hearing the Complainant also stated that a reconciliation of what monies she was owed had taken place and she had been compensated for some of the alleged shortfalls; however, she believed that she was still owed about €2000. However, no detail was provided at the hearing to show how that amount was due to her and on what date(s) it related to. The Complainant did not provide an exceptional reason at the hearing to extend time. As the alleged contravention is outside of the relevant period to make a complaint to the Commission, I determine that the complaint is not well founded.
CA-00052265-005 The date of deduction is 22/12/2021- the date of lodging the complaint with the Commission is 16th of August 2022.
At the hearing the Complainant also stated that a reconciliation of what monies she was owed had taken place and she had been compensated for some of the alleged shortfalls; however, she believed that she was still owed about €2000. However, no detail was provided at the hearing to show how that amount was due to her and on what date(s) it related to. The Complainant did not provide an exceptional reason at the hearing to extend time. As the alleged contravention is outside of the relevant period to make a complaint to the Commission, I determine that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 11th May 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Time Barred |